CRANBORNE CHASE
Although Cranborne Chase was not a forest it appears to have acquired by prescription some of the
incidents of a forest, (fn. 1) and so merits treatment here.
As delimited by the inner bounds, the chase lay
wholly within Dorset, south of the 'shire rack', or
boundary, which divides that county from Wiltshire. Wiltshire is concerned, however, with what
is contained by the so-called outer bounds, which,
entering the county north of Fordingbridge (Hants),
proceeded by Downton Bridge to 'Aylwardesbrigg'
(Harnham Bridge, Salisbury), to Bulbridge, Wilton.
Thence they ran to Hurdcott on the Nadder; to
the mill at 'Bynington'; to the mill at Tisbury; to
'Wytham' near the junction of the rivers Sem and
Nadder; to the source of the Sem and thence to
Shaftesbury. (fn. 2)
While within the inner bounds the area was computed to be 40,000 acres, the outer bounds were
estimated to inclose 800,000 acres, of which a not
inconsiderable portion lay in Wiltshire, contained
in the hundreds of Chalke, Dunworth, Downton,
Cawdon and Cadworth, and South Damerham. The
beasts of the chase were, according to Manwood, the
buck, the doe, the fox, and the marten, which were
especially numerous in Vernditch (Broad Chalke). (fn. 3)
The forest law, applicable to the beasts of the forest,
the red deer, fallow deer, roe deer, and wild boar,
was enforced in Cranborne Chase. Vernditch and
Rushmore (Berwick St. John) were the only deer
walks of the chase lying within Wiltshire. That at
Vernditch was said to have contained between 1,000
and 1,200 deer in 1650, and not more than 500 some
twenty years later. (fn. 4) About the same date there were
about 160 deer in Rushmore Walk. (fn. 5) The earliest
map of the chase is dated 1618, (fn. 6) and was produced
in Salisbury; another of the same date was published
in Blandford, (fn. 7) and these two maps seems to have
been exhibits in the court case between the Earl of
Salisbury and the Earl of Pembroke. Besides the
two deer walks, a fringe of coppices from Ashcombe
(Berwick St. John) in the west, through Bridmore
(Berwick St. John), Norrington (Alvediston), Manwood (Alvediston), to 'Chettel' Wood' (fn. 8) in the east,
ran along the Wiltshire side of the county boundary,
involving the parishes of Tollard Royal, Berwick
St. John, Alvediston, Ebbesborne Wake, and Bower
Chalke, where the vert was subject to chase law, and
the venison protected by keepers.
The lordship of the chase is thought to have
originated with the possessions of Brictric, which at
the time of Domesday were held by Matilda, the
wife of William I. (fn. 9) On her death the lordship lapsed
to the Crown, but was granted by William II to
Robert Fitzhamon, from whom it passed to his
eldest daughter, Mabel, who married Robert, created
Earl of Gloucester, an illegitimate son of Henry I.
He was succeeded in 1147 by his son, William, upon
whose death in 1183, Henry II kept the honor in his
own hands for the following six years, eventually
disposing it to William's third daughter, Isabel, (fn. 10)
the wife of John Plantagenet, who in 1199 succeeded
to the throne. After the divorce of Isabel, the lordship passed, on her remarriage, to her second husband, Geoffrey de Mandeville, and on his death to
Isabel's third husband, Hubert de Burgh, who died
soon afterwards without issue. It next descended
to Almeric d'Evreux, the son of Mabel the eldest
daughter of William (see above), who after a short
tenure also died without issue. It next descended to
Gilbert de Clare, Earl of Hertford, the son of Richard
de Clare and Amice the second daughter of William,
Earl of Gloucester (see above). He was succeeded by
his son Richard, in 1230, and by his son Gilbert,
the Red Earl, in 1262, and by his son Gilbert, in
1295, who lost his life in 1314 at the battle of Bannockburn, leaving no heirs. The next in succession
was his sister Elizabeth, and by her marriage with
John de Burgh, Earl of Ulster, the chase passed to
their daughter Philippa, the wife of Edmund Mortimer, Earl of March, and from him to his son Roger,
who died in 1398. His daughter Anne married
Richard, Earl of Cambridge, from whom the lordship descended to their son Richard, Duke of York,
and on his death at the battle of Wakefield in 1460,
it became reunited with the Crown in the person of
his son, Edward IV. (fn. 11)
Thereafter, the chase remained with the Crown
until the reign of James I, when it was granted to
Robert, Earl of Salisbury, in 1616. (fn. 12) The third earl
conveyed it, together with the manor of Berwick St.
John, but exclusive of Vernditch, which had already
been alienated, to the Earl of Shaftesbury for the
sum of £5,300 in 1671. In 1692 it was sold, but without the manor of Berwick, for £3,500 to Thomas
Freke of Shroton (Dors.), who bequeathed it to
Thomas Pile and his wife Elizabeth (née Freke) of
Baverstock, for their lives, with reversion to George
Pitt of Strathfieldsaye (Hants), who entered upon
his inheritance in 1714. He was succeeded in 1734
by his son, and in 1745 by his grandson, George Pitt,
who was created Baron Rivers. It remained with this
family until its disfranchisement in 1828.
A perambulation of the chase in the 12th century,
when John was Earl of Gloucester, was in later times
claimed to have supplied a title to the outer bounds. (fn. 13)
It was imputed to him that, acting as though he
were king, he had appropriated to the chase certain
adjacent areas outside the chase, amongst which was
the manor of Damerham. (fn. 14) In 1215, as king, John
ordered a perambulation to be made to ascertain
'what is our chase, and what is the chase of Geoffrey
de Mandeville, that is to say, the chase which
William, Earl of Gloucester, formerly held, that
Geoffrey should be granted the same chases which
the Earl of Gloucester had held'. (fn. 15)
An inquisition held by the Bishop of Salisbury,
the Bishop of Bath, and William Longspée in 1220
was later frequently recited in support of the limita
tion of the chase to the inner bounds, (fn. 16) but it has
not survived. In 1245 at an inquisition to determine
in what manner King John had held the chase, and
how far it extended otherwise than by the usurpation of the king, (fn. 17) the jury unanimously affirmed the
outer bounds as far as the River Nadder. (fn. 18) In 1255
before the justices in Eyre it was submitted that the
Earl of Gloucester had his cursus into Wiltshire,
where he had no tenement, but only a percursus as
far as the Nadder and the Avon, but by reason of
his percursus outside his chase (percursus forensicus)
he had converted the whole country into a forest. (fn. 19)
In 1279 a perambulation, presided over by Walter
Scammell, Dean of Salisbury, and Matthew de
Columbers, decided in favour of the inner bounds,
and recommended that 'Chettel Wood' and Vernditch and all the country as far as the Nadder be
disafforested as contravening the Charter of the
Forests, but no evidence was adduced to show that
any part of the chase had been afforested in the
reigns of Henry II, Richard I or John, so as to bring
it within the terms of the Charter. (fn. 20)
In 1280 Gilbert de Clare was required to show by
what right he had appropriated the country intervening between the inner and outer bounds. (fn. 21) On
behalf of the Crown it was argued that the inner
bounds, as defined by the perambulation of Dean
Scammell the previous year, were, in fact, the legal
and historic limits of the chase. The earl relied upon
the 12th-century perambulation made when King
John was Earl of Gloucester and upon that of 1245.
The boundaries both of the inner and outer bounds
were described from point to point with great
particularity.
The grievances which had precipitated the Pleas
de Quo Warranto came from every hundred in Wiltshire, south of the Nadder and West of the Avon, as
far as Salisbury. As early as 1250 the Abbess of Wilton had remonstrated that she was not permitted
to take reasonable estover in her woods at Vernditch and Chettel, nor her men to take housebote
and hayebote. (fn. 22) These woods were stated to be in the
percursus of the earl. An accumulation of evidence is
preserved in the Hundred Rolls of 1275. (fn. 23) Certain
presentments were common to all or nearly all the
hundreds: that, for instance, the earl had converted
all the country as far as the Nadder into a forest;
that he had posted seven foresters in that area; that
they made attachments of vert and venison; that they
imposed cheminage in the fence month; that they
captured villagers on any pretext, took them to
Cranborne and there detained them pending payment of money; that their actions contravened the
perambulation of the two bishops in 1220.
From most hundreds, however, the jury also preferred some specific complaint. From Downton,
then belonging to the Bishop of Winchester, the
foresters collected a toll from the bishop's men driving carts of dead wood and seasoned timber from the
New Forest to Salisbury market. (fn. 24) At Britford, then
said to be in the hundred of Cawdon, they used arms
against the crowds assembled at the fair on 1 August. (fn. 25)
In the hundred of South Damerham they captured
a man at Martin, (fn. 26) and without reason hanged him
at Cranborne, thereafter impounding some cattle in
a herd at Bridmore (Berwick St. John) on the plea
that they belonged to the hanged man, and annexed
a horse, a silver mark, and a silver buckle. (fn. 27) In the
hundred of Chalke they were accused of collecting
sheaves of corn in the autumn for the brewing of
their scotales, of compelling the villagers to drink the
scotales, and of extorting hens, lambs, and fleeces for
Christmas. (fn. 28) At Bishopstone, another manor held
of the Bishopric of Winchester, they captured a cart
loaded with thorns belonging to the rector, the horses
and a nag, which a groom was riding to water in the
middle of the royal way in the village, detaining them
until the rector paid a fine of half a mark. (fn. 29)
Although the proceedings were inconclusive, from
that date the grievances in Wiltshire declined, and
the Earl of Gloucester on his side adopted a more
conciliatory attitude. This was evinced the following
year at a meeting between the earl and the Abbot of
Glastonbury at Sherborne (Dors.), when the former
surrendered all claims to 'Boulsbury Highwood' (fn. 30)
in the hundred of South Damerham, then belonging
to Glastonbury, and conceded to the abbot the right
to ditch and fence against deer. 'Thereafter no
forester dared enter upon the crops of the villeins.' (fn. 31)
Two factors conduced towards more harmonious
relations between the owners of the chase and the
owners of the land. In the first place, the chase from
this time was held by persons closely connected with
the Crown, until under Edward IV it became vested
in the sovereign. And secondly, the title to the outer
bounds became largely invalidated by concessions
granted within them. Free warren—the right to hunt
ferae naturae on uninclosed land, usually demesne—
was granted in 1294 to the Abbess of Shaftesbury
in her demesne lands at Tisbury and Donhead. (fn. 32) In
1303 the same concession was allowed to John
Hussy at Bridmore, and in 1330 to the Abbot of
Glastonbury in his manor of Damerham and Martin. (fn. 33) Moreover parks were inclosed in course of
time at Wilton, Wardour, and Faulston (Bishopstone) (fn. 34) in Wiltshire, and the Dorsetshire park at
Blagdon was enlarged to include part of the Damerham hundred in 1483. (fn. 35)
During these centuries the controversy concerning the boundaries of the chase subsided. The rolls
of the chase court at Cranborne reveal minor
breaches of forest law. (fn. 36) Thus presentments were
made in Chalke for destroying underwood (1468),
for permitting hedges to lie open a year after being
cut, and for grazing sheep within the chase (1523);
at Ebbesborne for not repairing hedges (1548); at
Alvediston for permitting coppice to stand longer
than the prescribed period (1443), and for pasturing
300 sheep in Manwood (Alvediston) (1475); at Rushmore for allowing unringed pigs to pannage within
the chase (1550). Sporadic interference with deer
also occurred, as hunting them with hounds at
Eastcomb (Ebbesborne Wake) (1469) and the capture of deer in Chalke Field and in Vernditch (1475),
but neither the offence nor its punishment excited
the protests that had been the feature of the 13th
century.
From the fact that these infringements of chase
law occurred without exception in the hundred of
Chalke, in parishes contiguous with the Dorset border (Tollard Royal, Berwick St. John, Alvediston,
Ebbesborne Wake, and Bower Chalke) it may be
inferred that the claim to a boundary at the Nadder
and the Avon had by this time been withdrawn. But
£2 a year was paid in lieu of cheminage at the
bridges at Harnham and Wilton in 1412–13, (fn. 37) and
George Penruddock was under an obligation to pay
the chief forester a subsidy of 1 quarter of barley and
6 bushels of wheat in respect of his land in the Chalke
valley in 1570. (fn. 38)
In 1616 the 'whole chase, free chase and free warren in the Chase of Cranborne, and all privileges,
jurisdiction and liberties in the counties of Dorset,
Wiltshire and Southampton' were granted to Robert,
Earl of Salisbury, (fn. 39) who lost no time in advancing
his claims to the outer bounds in their fullest
implications. Actions were brought against the Earl
of Pembroke in Chancery and against Lord Arundell in the Court of Common Pleas. In a subordinate
cause, judgement was given against the keeper of the
Earl of Salisbury, and the earl surrendered his grant
and procured a new one, (fn. 40) which, however, did not
define the boundaries of the chase. The familiar
arguments were repeated and no new ones adduced.
Judgement in the case of Lord Arundell, delivered
in 1619, allowed the Earl of Salisbury certain areas
in Tollard Royal, and against a Mr. Gawen certain
areas at Norrington, both of which amounted to the
privilege of purlieu. (fn. 41) The earl did not proceed
further against Lord Pembroke, but sold him Vernditch, the best stocked walk and the main source of
controversy, in 1620.
During the tenure of the chase by the Earl of
Shaftesbury, who acquired it in 1671, amicable relations obtained between lord and tenants; presents of
deer were frequently made. In 1672 a deer was given
to the tenants of Berwick St. John, another killed
in 'Cobley Walk', to Lord Arundell, another to Mr.
Bennett of Pythouse, Tisbury; others were divided
among persons living near the chase. (fn. 42)
The vogue of the gentlemen hunters, 'now called
deer stealers,' (fn. 43) began about 1700 and terminated in
1736 when the making a second offence a felony,
punishable by transportation, put a period to their
pastime. They sprang from some of the best families
in the confines of the chase, and, attired in 'cap and
jack' were prepared to pay the £30 fine in consideration for their diversions, when detected by the
keepers. Although there were some gruesome encounters, amicable relations subsisted between them,
according to a good authority. (fn. 44) The most notorious,
and certainly the most original of this coterie, was
Harry Goode of Bower Chalke whose portrait by
Byng forms the frontispiece of Chafin's history of the
chase. The scene of their exploits was that line of
coppices in Wiltshire, north of the Dorset boundary, of which mention has been made.
The second half of the 18th century was marked
by that controversy which developed with acerbity
between Lord Rivers and the group of landed gentry,
who came to be known as the Proprietors, for the
disfranchisement of the chase. They included the
Earl of Buckingham, the Earl of Shaftesbury,
Lord Arundell of Wardour, and Anthony Chapman,
who was appointed secretary. (fn. 45) While Lord Rivers
did not recede from his claim to the outer bounds,
the proprietors based their argument upon moral
grounds. They claimed that the chase was conducive
to poaching, stealing, and smuggling, with their
consequences, the idleness and profligacy of the
rural population, (fn. 46) and was therefore prejudicial to
society. Their advocacy for disfranchisement, however, coincided with the phase of inclosure all over
England. The offer of £200 a year, free of tax, was
indignantly rejected, and £1,000 a year with a park
at Rushmore demanded. (fn. 47) The crux in the negotiations was the determination of a fair basis of valuation. While the proprietors maintained that the basis
should be the value of the chase accruing to Lord
Rivers, the latter argued that the value should be
the measure of advantage accruing to the proprietors
from disfranchisement. As to the inclusion of Wiltshire in the disfranchisement, it was maintained by
the landowners that Wiltshire had never at any time
formed part of the chase. (fn. 48) The committee of proprietors was formed in 1787 after a meeting at
Woodyates Inn, and at a second meeting in 1790, a
subscription list was opened. But while the annual
deer-hunt at Tollard, which for generations had
succeeded the session of the Chase Court and the
deer-hunt at Handley which traditionally terminated
the sitting of the manorial court had been suppressed,
it was not until 1829 that Cranborne Chase was
disfranchised.